20th century globalisation is said to have led to a ‘post-sovereign’ era, or at the least to the ‘pooling’ of state sovereignty. Do you think this process was necessary and/or desirable?

intro

• this essay will assess the Neo-realist opposition to institutions, showing that the cooperation they encourage is certainly desirable.

• it will prove that the anarchic world system inhibits cooperation, meaning they are therefore necessary

P1 - not necessary - Mearsheimer and Powell 1994

• both Neo-realists and Neo-liberals believe that anarchy prevents cooperation (Powell 1994)

• Neo-realists argue that the world operates best under anarchy. This means that there are no powers above states

• the pooling of sovereignty is unnecessary because the world functions well in this way - war is not something to be feared as it can help to change or protect the balance of power when needed

• states should be allowed to retain independence

P2 - yes necessary - Mearsheimer 1994

• anarchy has overall negative consequences for the world order

• anarchy means states are survival motivated and prioritise maximising their relative gains as a result of their fear/suspicion of other states (Mearsheimer 1994)

• higher leadership could reduce these issues and encourage cooperation between states

• this would mean war becomes less necessary - lower financial and human losses for states, peaceful forms of negotiation

P3 - not desirable - Mearsheimer 1994

• institutions are ineffective as they “mirror the balance of power” - the results they promote could be achieved without their existence

• causes a waste of resources

• increases bureaucracy

• change and cooperation could be more efficient without institutions

• if the same nations dominate institutions as have hegemonic power in the world order, more might be possible to be achieved against hegemons in their absence

P4 - yes desirable - Keohane 1984

• Neo-realist view is flawed because it only considers the make-up of institutions at their creation - no long term analysis

• changes in regimes do not always mirror power shifts - loss of a hegemonic power does not always result in the loss of the institution it created, gives opportunity for new states to gain power

• neo-realists take a stark view of the io - it can either be hegemonic or conflictual. in reality, there is a middle ground and institutions can help selfish states cooperate and find a mutual benefit

P5 - not desirable - Mearsheimer 1994

• Neo-liberals often have too heavy a focus on the importance of absolute gains, when in reality if a state does not receive a relative gain from cooperation it will not cooperate

• a state’s military and economy are interlinked - if a state does not have a relative gain from a transaction its military strength is reduced

• therefore institutions are undesirable for states as they do not want to be encouraged to take relatively disadvantageous decisions, which may be forced upon them

P6 - yes desirable - Keohane 1984

• states are not perfectly rational actors even if the individuals leading them are - they can fail to find relatively advantageous solutions

• ethical considerations are also not taken into account

• Weber (1905) argues that while rational choice models are valuable, they cannot be directly applied to world politics - it is far too complex and varied

• the Neo-realist view is limited by only looking into the short term - cooperation is not the end goal, but rather the means to a variety of objectives

• this mean that states may cooperate in a disadvantageous way to secure future benefits. we cannot look at each interaction as a one-off